From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Ripard Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] drivers: pinctrl: add driver for Allwinner A64 SoC Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:12:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20160209171215.GT31506@lukather> References: <1454348370-3816-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <1454348370-3816-6-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <20160201182754.GA14737@excalibur.cnev.de> <56AFE0EC.8080207@arm.com> <20160202100046.GM4652@lukather> <56B0DF26.10203@arm.com> <20160204165151.GK4270@lukather> <20160208155405.GA4677@rob-hp-laptop> <56B8BB1A.8010705@arm.com> Reply-To: maxime.ripard-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mW9eGbZzDIYYWqGs" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56B8BB1A.8010705-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Andre Przywara Cc: Rob Herring , Karsten Merker , Chen-Yu Tsai , linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org, Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Linus Walleij , Vishnu Patekar , linux-gpio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --mW9eGbZzDIYYWqGs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:58:18PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/02/16 15:54, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 05:51:51PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >> Hi Andre, > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:53:58PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > >>>> So, droping it in the filenames, why not. But I'd really like to keep > >>>> the same compatible scheme. > >>> > >>> And I still don't get this: in the DT compatible scheme we always have a > >>> vendor prefix, so allwinner,a64 is surely not a mysterious ARM Ltd. core > >>> or a new Apple SoC. Instead it is the A64 from Allwinner, full stop. So > >>> why should we add an arbitrary and confusing sun50i naming to it (when > >>> it actually should be more like "sun8i-a64"). > >> > >> I don't decide on their marketing names. And I know you want to start > >> anew with the arm64 SoCs, but the truth is, you don't. Most of the > >> compatibles in the DTSI are from earlier SoCs, and we have to keep > >> that legacy and remain consistent with it. With all the good and bad > >> things a legacy imply. > > > > I have to agree. Unless there is some agreement to move to another > > naming scheme, then just follow the same pattern. If sunXi is just a > > made up name outside of Allwinner to provide some logical grouping of > > SoCs, then yes, that probably should not have been done. > > So I still don't like it, but will not waste my time or energy on that > front. > > Maxime, do you want "allwinner,sun50i-a64" or would > "allwinner,sunxi-a64" be OK as well? The former will be fine. Thanks! Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com --mW9eGbZzDIYYWqGs--